Cardinal Vs Cardinal

A while back, I tried to look at the problem with Amoris laetitia as it relates to the moral norms always taught by the Church, and defined in the Papal Encyclical Veritatis Splendor.

In a strange interview with a Belgian Magazine reported today, Cardinal Müller re-affirms that "There are no circumstances in which adultery would not be a deadly sin, the pope's Amoris laetitia on marriage and family does not contradict this." The Cardinal goes on to condemn the letter of the four Cardinals and their dubia. His continued insistence that there is no problem here appears, at best, extremely naive. Whilst I agree that the problems with Amoris Laetitia are non-existent when it is interpreted in the light of the Magisterium, the problem is that that is not how it is being interpreted! Whilst Müller continues to assert the constant and settled teaching of the Church on this through the bizarre and unorthodox method of magazine interviews, bishops are teaching the contrary and are not being corrected by the Pope. This is fact.

In this recent post, Dr Ed Peters, Canon Lawyer, explains how the problem with Amoris Laetitia is not so much what it teaches, but what it fails to clarify. He states:

I do not think that Francis changed any doctrines in Amoris (or even purported to change any doctrines—assuming a pope could have changed doctrines this way, which I would dispute) and thus I regard the kind of correctives routinely offered by Nichols, et al., as superfluous. But I’ll go a step further: I do not think that Francis changed any disciplines in Amoris (or even purported to change any disciplines—assuming a pope could have changed disciplines this way, which I would also dispute, though less vigorously than above). In short, I hold that the few who claim Francis changed doctrine via Amoris, and the many who claim that he changed disciplines therein, are wrong.

That said, though, I still regard Amoris (or at least its eighth chapter) as seriously flawed, not because of doctrinal changes it never attempted and not because of disciplinary changes it never effected, but because of the ambiguity and incompleteness with which it discusses certain key, doctrinal and/or disciplinary factors that go into making real world, concrete, Yes-you-can or No-you-can’t decisions regarding Penance and holy Communion.

Dr. Peters argues that the flaw in the document allows it to be used by diametrically opposed schools of sacramental practice and this is the real problem.

Whilst noting that all of the canons governing sacramental administration, notably Canon 915, remain in full force, he points out that the Maltese, the Germans, and Cdl. Coccopalmerio (but not the Argentinians, not quite) go well beyond what the pope actually wrote in Amoris, though some of his phrasings in the document frustrates one’s ability to appeal to it as a corrective; while other bishops such as Egan, Chaput and the Western Canadians can also invoke Amoris to justify their sacramental polices even though their policies are the polar opposite of those being pushed by the Maltese et al.

Of course, the vagueness comes as no surprise in the context of comments made by Archbishop Bruno Forte, the Archbishop of Chieti-Vasto. Bishop Forte said during a presentation on Amoris Laetitia back in May 2016, that Pope Francis told him at the Synod on the Family that he didn’t want to speak “plainly” about the question of admitting remarried divorcees to Holy Communion because doing so would make a “terrible mess.”

Forte claimed that the pope told him: “If we speak explicitly about communion for the divorced and remarried, you do not know what a terrible mess we will make. So we won’t speak plainly, do it in a way that the premises are there, then I will draw out the conclusions.”

“Typical of a Jesuit,” Archbishop Forte reportedly joked. The comments were reported here.

Popular posts from this blog

The legend reads:<<Oi Frankie, you have emasculated Congregations, suspended priests, decapitated the Order of Malta and the Franciscans of the Immaculate, ignored Cardinals...But where is your mercy?>>

Christians faced with the ravages of Bergoglio...Roma e' tappezzata - Rome is carpeted!

A source told me that the posters near the Vatican have already been covered up; but they ARE ALL OVER ROME!!

Newman, Letter to the Duke of Norfolk, Diff., II, 279-280

Here I am led to interpose a remark;—it is plain, then, that there are those near, or with access, to the Holy Father, who would, if they could, go much further in the way of assertion and command, than the divine Assistentia, which overshadows him, wills or permits; so {280} that his acts and his words on doctrinal subjects must be carefully scrutinised and weighed, before we can be sure what really he has said. Utterances which must be received as comin…

A few of days ago I posted about a new book called The Dictator Pope which has been really causing a stir as it claims to be the inside story of the most tyrannical and unprincipled papacy of modern times.

Now this was first posted on One Peter Five, which I love, but some criticise because it is a site critical of progressive catholic attitudes and modernism. Anyway some people these days dismiss certain sources because they tend to contradict their own agenda. I don't, as I have said here numerous times before, we are all parts of the body of Christ and that body has many parts (cf. 1 Cor 12). If I agree with everything someone says, I'm probably reading my own blog. We all get it wrong sometimes.

Anyway, I was concerned initially that this would be seen as a diatribe against the pope with an agenda. This would make the contents easier to dismiss.Almost read “The Dictator Pope”, of course it is all libelous gossip, the Church is not a dictatorship, is it? — raymond blake (@r…

Vaticanista Marco Tossati reports that even the faithless men who put Pope Francis on the throne of St. Peter are losing patience with his laissez faire, "make a mess" approach to being pope.

In his article on the AAS inclusion of the Buenos Aires directives, he remarks:
A cardinal of great renown, a former diplomat, who has served an impressive career at the head of Congregations and in high offices in the Secretariat of State, is said to have reproved the Pope for his actions [as Pope], saying to him essentially, “We elected you to make reforms, not to smash everything.” News of this conversation — if it can be called a conversation — has spread through the Vatican, because it took place at a high decibel level, which carried through the fragile barrier of the doors and walls. The cardinal in question was one of those who supported the candidacy of Jorge Mario Bergoglio in the conclave of 2013.Gloria.tv reports that this is most likely the Argentinian Leonardo Sandri, the…